Comments by "bakters" (@bakters) on "The Greatest Knight That Ever Lived: William Marshal" video.
-
52
-
31
-
@kimberlywalker_ Well, I looked into it a little bit. Musashi is all about swords, and dueling with swords specifically. He was good at it, but to some extent he kinda "cheated", since he used both swords at once.
Swords are primarily sidearms, so it's like defeating a rifleman in a pistol duel. Not too hard if you try to excel at shooting pistols, while he trains for war. Add to that your ability to shoot with both hands, and the outcome of a duel is quite easy to predict.
Anyway, he apparently defeated a "lancer" once. I write in quotes, because they fought on foot, none of them wanted to fight, then they were extremely courteous in exchanging niceties between each other, and it seems like they pretty much agreed that a student will not challenge the master.
In my opinion, a competent spearman has huge advantage over a swordsman even on foot. On horseback, he's almost unbeatable.
8
-
@kimberlywalker_ I think that the differences in metallurgy were blown a bit out of proportions, because people got fed up with various myths surrounding katana.
No, it wasn't special. Yes, it's shallow hardened steel, but apparently quite a few European weapons were made out of similar material.
Similar carbon content, similar slag content, etc.
The main difference would be, that while Europeans developed better steel later, once Japan entered Edo period it kinda froze in time. Europe was trading, so you could gett better raw materials, better intermediate products and finished goods, while Japan had to use whatever they had locally available, and that stuff wasn't the best quality.
6
-
6
-
2
-
@1flash3571 " a long as sword which can be used to chop down a horse "
I've seen it tested with a halberd against a lance. The idea was to beat the lance out while chambering a strike, then hit.
Worked fine, as long as the mounted guy was going at a snail pace. Any faster than that, and the footman has practically no time to hit. He can only defend.
" dismount a knight. After that, it is a different story "
After that, they are at equal footing. Anyway, it's not easy to kill the horse on the spot. A strong hit to the head is practically your only option. Chopping off a leg might work, but it's not a given, and it's definitely not easy to chop through those bones.
If horsemen were easy to defeat, nobody in his right mind would invest so much money into their mounts. They were stupidly expensive.
" Nothing is called cheating during a fight to the death duels. "
That wasn't true in Europe. You had seconds which were there to insure honorable conduct, but usually they were not needed, because the people involved restrained themselves, even if they were drunk.
That's why only a nobleman had a right to challenge a nobleman. They were raised as honorable people, unlike other social classes.
2
-
2
-
1
-
@anon4854 " Liechtenauer's treatises were written centuries after both Marshal and El Cid "
That means that more people had access to better armor.
" The longsword was not precisely the same "
That is correct, and it's actually a relevant argument. Well, we have I.33 from Marshall times, where they fight without armor with swords and bucklers. In XIth century sword and shield was more likely, closer to the duels depicted in the sagas.
So fighting without armor would be quite common, but they did rely on their shields quite a lot.
" treatises do show people training in arming doublets "
They show them fighting in those. While attacking targets and inflicting wounds which make no sense in armored context.
They trained for judicial duels, they are shown fighting without armor, why assume it's "licentia poetica" of sorts? I mean, there are duels between a man and a lady shown, both without armor, the man is in a hole in the ground armed with a club, while a lady circles around armed with a rock in a sock.
That's much more crazy and we think it really happened.
" Plenty, if not the majority, of Lichtenauers techniques could be utilized wearing armour "
Yet some don't work in this context, while all of them work without armor.
I don't know how you imagine people dueled back then, but I do know how they did it much later in Baroque Poland, because we have plenty of sources describing those.
Disputes could spring out of the blue, and they just started fighting. If the duels were forbidden by law for some reason, they'd go somewhere more private. I don't remember reading a single account of them donning any sort of armor.
" Marshall and Cid would have fought would have been in armour '
You mean, you travel somewhere, you meet a guy in a tavern and he insults you. So, the mighty El Cid would tell him to wait until he puts on his hauberk?
Even if Cid won, he'd be laughed at.
" Pitting Musashi against either Marshall or El Cid makes no sense if you ask me. "
I don't think so. All of them were top level fighters. Musashi more of a calculated trickster, but I'm sure the times of El Cid and Marshall were much less glamorous than how they are being recalled.
They'd have known how to deal with tricksters.
1
-
@anon4854 " they trained without armour, that doesnt mean they fought without armour "
That's too silly. You fight when you have to fight, that includes all the times you are being attacked while not wearing armor. You train when you want to train. So you can prepare yourself and avoid silly injuries.
Plenty of treatises both prepare you and show on the illustrations people fighting without armor . Regardless of the period, weapons used and the different techniques - they are optimized for unarmored combat.
Harnischfechten is a very different style. Most sword strikes are literally useless.
No, I won't debate this issue anymore. It's too silly.
" Duels were not hot blooded and spontaneous like in films "
Yes, they were. At least quite often they were just that.
" If someone insulted El Cid there would likely be a challenge and an appropriate time and terms agreed upon "
I so wish you could go back in time (as a noble) and try that... He'd flatten you on the spot, before you'd have any time to say "I was jok.." Splat!
" A commoner just wouldnt insult him. "
Rightfully so. El Cid wouldn't even need to direct his retainers, they'd grab the dude right away. If the dude was really off his kilter, El Cid would simply order him hanged, then nonchalantly throw some coins on the ground as a compensation.
But that's mostly theoretical. Almost nobody would be that stupid.
" you have them fighting in armour because of course you do, that's how duels were fought "
Why would they train for unarmored fighting, then? What's the point of delivering a swift cut to the side of the helmet? So the other guy can smile, close in, grab and stab you in the eyeslit with his dagger?
Damn, I was supposed to ignore this issue. From now on, I'll be good.
" Musashi is absolutely a top tier swordsman but a better match up would actually be Lichtenauer or Fiore "
Both teachers. You know the saying? Those who can do, those who can't teach? (and those who can't do either, teach philosophy)
1
-
@anon4854 " There was legalities and codes "
How would you enforce them? There is a character in Polish history, who lined his coat with all the legalities leveled against him. He lived in one of the richest countries in the world, with printing press, courts, and all that.
Yet he was able to laugh in the face of it!
You think 11th century Western Europe was more "civilized"? Obviously, you do. Obviously, you are delusional.
BTW - If it all was so balmy, how come we are told that Marshall could have killed the King if he just wished? He killed his horse instead (very expensive...) and got away with it too.
What do you mean with all those "legalities and codes"? So, if Marshall agreed to fight a rumbling dude in the tavern and wounded him, there would be what? A police officer, which didn't exist, would start an investigation against him?
No, sorry, it's all way too silly. Have a nice day.
1
-
@anon4854 " you're just ignoring arguments [...] you concede that the treatises you're referencing are not relevant? "
I already addressed it. Okay, let me repeat.
Since treatises teach and show techniques of unarmored combat, in the eras when armor was cheaper, better and more prevalent, it's obvious that fighting without armor was done before, when armor was expensive and rare.
But you were like - Nope. Doesn't count. LaLaLaLa, Doesn't count.
So be it. It's not like I can counter that, is it?
" Chivalry existed "
Well, that depends how early, but I never said it didn't. Dueling is not unchivalrous, though. The whole dueling culture stems from the code of honorable conduct of the earlier eras. Like, you would openly challenge your oponent, instead of simply trying to kill him. You would give him fair chance too.
" issues could be brought before legal courts "
How is that chivalrous? Instead of defending your honor sword in hand, you hide behind some sleazy-legalezy?
Only a coward would do that, or some merchant, which for them probably amounted to the same thing.
" I'm fairly certain Marshall unhorsed Richard during a war, before he was king. "
You didn't watch the video, did you?
Richard was the king, it wasn't a battle, Marshall purposefully killed his horse and got away with it.
" How ignorant of history are you? Though a matter of violence among nobles would likely be handled directly by the local lord or higher courts. "
So funny. I really loled.
Anyway, you gotta be German, aren't you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelterrell5061 " men on horses can be dismounted with well placed lance "
Of course, that's what jousting is all about.
However, with regard to a spearman on foot fighting a mounted lancer, it's much harder to do. If the spear is short, the lancer has an advantage of range. He can pass by the spearman and attack him with perfect safety.
If the spear is long, so the lancer can't easily outrange it, we are entering a "lance-fencing" duel of sorts. It's been described in several manuals and there is a Dutch (I think) guy who demonstrates some of it on Youtube.
Here the advantage again goes to the lancer. He can displace the spear while keeping his own point directed toward the spearman, while it's very hard or outright impossible to do on foot. If you beat the lance out, your point misses the lancer. He can even topple you over with his horse, then finish you off.
Basically, if horsemen didn't have some serious advantages over footmen, nobody in his right mind would want to pay for those stupidly expensive mounts. You could equip and train about 5 footmen for the price of a single, well trained warhorse.
Could be more, depending on the quality.
1
-
1
-
@kimberlywalker_ " Throw it "
That can work. But it disarms you and he's got a shield. Though sure, chucking missiles at the dude will at least be able to nullify his range advantage.
" I mean, it's a POLE. Reach "
He's got his own pole, which outranges your weapon.
From what people who tried it say, like Matt Easton, 3vs1 might give an advantage to the footmen. That's now, with barely trained horses and horsemen, so we have to assume that with better horsemanship, it was likely about even odds.
1v1 ? I think a good rider should win even if he doesn't have a lance. I mean, sword and shield vs a spear is not a forgone conclusion even on foot. When one guy sits atop of a competent mount?
It can't be worse, not out in the open.
1
-
@johannesmattsson9900 If you train for it, it's not much harder. For someone who's not used to it at all and specializes in single sword, even sword and shield can be difficult, but even then, with no training, you can still use the shield as a passive defense.
Someone who is trained to fight with both hands at once will obviously employ a more effective style. And it's not very difficult at all, novices learn it at a similar pace as the single sword techniques.
Anyway, employing both hands in fighting is a huge part of European swordsmanship. Two swords were rarely trained, since most people weren't willing to carry them around, like a witcher. However, sword and dagger were absolutely mainstream. In case they didn't have the dagger, they trained for sword and cloak or even sword and lantern.
Because employing both hands was more effective than just one.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@DoorDashHere " there is no cheating in life or death combat, how foolish of you "
That wasn't true. For example, they used to write and publish very detailed rulebooks for dueling. It's obvious, that where there are rules, there can be rule breaking, that includes cheating.
But that approach extended to all manners of violent conflict. You could conduct yourself honorably or dishonorably, and people were really willing to risk death in order to protect their honor. It wasn't a trivial matter to them, not at all.
Anyway, I'm not saying that fighting with two swords was literally cheating. It simply gave a sizable advantage to one side, but if both parties agreed it was allowed, then it was fine.
1
-
1